Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

I can only defend homepathy as it has greatly benefitted me. As a lifelong, chronic seasonal allergy sufferer, I went through a variety of OTC treatments, including "Afrin," the active ingredient of which is sold legally and can burn a hole in tissues in your nose.

In my mid 20's, doctors began to prescribe stronger and stronger meds. I remember SELDANE. Funny I remember, because I noticed within a week it f*cked up my short-term memory. It was eventually removed from the market. Then it was on to steroids, which the doctor said was safe, because it was targeted to my nasal cavity [but what about the drizzle going down my throat and into my stomch??!]

I knew I had to make a change or I was looking at a life time of IMMUNE-SUPPRESSING TREATMENT that were dispensed legally but harmful.

I tried Acupucture: no good. I tried herbals: no good. I tried high doses of vita C and B, and my nose cleared but my face broke out. I found a homepath in San Francisco who had been trained in the UK. Richard Pitt. He explained that he could treat me, but the way homeopathy works it would take a year or two of treatments. I gave it a go, while in the worst moments I did take the Rx meds.

Within two years, after 28 years of affliction, I entered an allergy season weary ... and nothing happpened. Nothing. No symptoms. I haven't taken any Rx or OTC meds until this year, possibly due to the heavy rains we had in the LA area. Even still, I am nothing at all like I used to be, where I cold not get any air at all through my nose. I supplement homepathic treatment WITH an occasinnal OTC and find I need much less of the OTC med.

Homepathy doesn't work for everything, or maybe for everybody. But it does work. This assessment is no different than any OTC or Rx med, which some can tolerate, others cannot. The difference is the OTC and Rx meds have mega corporations behind them

but the way homeopathy works it would take a year or two of treatments. I gave it a go, while in the worst moments I did take the Rx meds.

Within two years, after 28 years of affliction, I entered an allergy season weary ... and nothing happpened. Nothing. No symptoms. I haven't taken any Rx or OTC meds until this year, possibly due to the heavy rains we had in the LA area. Even still, I am nothing at all like I used to be, where I cold not get any air at all through my nose. I supplement homepathic treatment WITH an occasinnal OTC and find I need much less of the OTC med.

Sorry I wasn't clear about that. Yes, I had to take the OTC ONLY WHILE the homeopathic treatments were taking effect. Essentially, I followed the homepath's regimen and in the worst moments took an OTC, but this decreased within 2 years until I took no OTC's at ll for almost 15 years until this last Spring. I went on Claritin D for a month while I supplemented a homeopathic treatment. Again, gradual decreasing as the homeopathic became more effective. If you know anything about the treatments this makes perfect sense.

Sorry I wasn't clear about that. Yes, I had to take the OTC ONLY WHILE the homeopathic treatments were taking effect. Essentially, I followed the homepath's regimen and in the worst moments took an OTC, but this decreased within 2 years until I took no OTC's at ll for almost 15 years until this last Spring. I went on Claritin D for a month while I supplemented a homeopathic treatment. Again, gradual decreasing as the homeopathic became more effective. If you know anything about the treatments this makes perfect sense.

Homeopathy works for me and many, many others. Bottom line.

I know all about homeopathic treatments and they don't make any sense.

There will be an entirely rational ordinary explanation that has nothing to do with homeopathy for what you've described here.

Homeopathy is a scam desgined to separate the gullible and not terribly bright from their money.

I know all about homeopathic treatments and they don't make any sense.

There will be an entirely rational ordinary explanation that has nothing to do with homeopathy for what you've described here.

Homeopathy is a scam desgined to separate the gullible and not terribly bright from their money.

Bottom fucking line.

MtD

Don't make any sense? There WILL be an entirely rational ordinary explanation? You don't sound like you know much about anything. You probably couldn't explain how an aspirin works: doctors cannot, but people take them.

Your scam has taken as much money as the allopathic scam has, and done less bodily damage. Prominent people who can make better arguments than you yourself have used homeopathy with success. Much of medicine is ART, but cussing doesn't making any different.

Don't make any sense? There WILL be an entirely rational ordinary explanation? You don't sound like you know much about anything. You probably couldn't explain how an aspirin works: doctors cannot, but people take them.

Aspirin works by inhibiting the action of an enzyme called co-oxygenase two preventing the production of chemicals called prostaglandins. This effect reduces inflammation and thus alleviates pain.

Also your OP demonstrates that you don't really know much about homeopathy at all. Like most peoplel who follow bullshit alternative health care systems you're just making it up as you go along.

Quote

Your scam has taken as much money as the allopathic scam has, and done less bodily damage. Prominent people who can make better arguments than you yourself have used homeopathy with success. Much of medicine is ART, but cussing doesn't making any different.

Well, what-the-fuck-ever.

Here's an idea - why don't you apply the process (which has no basis in homeopathy) you undertook for your allergy medication to your current anti-HIV regimen? Slowly phase out your atripla whilst taken some homeopathic preparation to replace it's effect?

What do you say? Are you prepared to put your ass on the line to prove yourself right?

Nobody in Switzerland blinks an eyelash about combining Homeopathy with medicine. A lot of people take homeopathy for allergies and have "success"It worked on my hayfever once but not the next year. I loved seldane, by the way. It was the first drug that worked well enough and didnt make me fall asleep on my books. Now there are wonderful antihistamines that I barely notice, the two months I take them.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Asian countries have been using homeopathic medicine for thousands of years, and yet im pretty sure they still stand as having people with the longest lifespan (ie japan). In fact, im pretty US has the biggest consumption of westernized medicine, and yet our level of health care doestn match the amount of spending we have on healthcare. I think there is definite value in homeopathic medicine, and people who disregard a topic so feveriuosly (YOU), probably are the most ignorant about it. That is all.

Asian countries have been using homeopathic medicine for thousands of years, and yet im pretty sure they still stand as having people with the longest lifespan (ie japan). In fact, im pretty US has the biggest consumption of westernized medicine, and yet our level of health care doestn match the amount of spending we have on healthcare. I think there is definite value in homeopathic medicine, and people who disregard a topic so feveriuosly (YOU), probably are the most ignorant about it. That is all.

Cut the personal insults please or I will be dispensing some time-outs.

BikRed - Perhaps you walked into this unknowingly, but there have been people promoting "natural therapies" over Western meds since the beginning of the epidemic. The most extreme believe that HIV doesn't even cause AIDS. We will NOT, I repeat, NOT, be having that conversation here. However, with that history, I hope you can see how conversations of this type can lead to problems.

Short of that, there are those who claim that there isn't enough evidence on the safety of western meds for HIV and a host of other diseases and that "natural" therapies are safer, and even work better. The problem with most alternative therapies is that there usually isn't very solid evidence for their efficacy, and their safety concerns are often underplayed or ignored - which are the very things that people promoting alternative therapies usually say about Western meds. You could say it's a he said/she said situation, except that with Western meds there are usually placebo-blinded studies in large enough groups that you can draw statistically meaningful conclusions.

Also, the FDA does require extensive testing for prescription medicine to ensure that the amount of active ingredient on the bottle is what's actually inside. There are no such standards with non-prescription herbs and supplements, and independent sources have confirmed that the amount of active ingredient in various herbs and supplements often varies widely. What's more, many of the tinctures and herbs from China and India contain heavy metals, such as lead, due to all of the pollutants in the air, soil and water.

Is western medicine perfect? No.

Are there sometimes long-term side effects that only become apparent later? Yes.

Is it possible that some alternative therapies might prove to be effective and safe if they were studied more rigorously? Yes.

With all of those caveats, however, really the only thing you can say about most alternative meds is whether or not they appeared to work for you or your friends. If you feel they worked, and you want to fork over the cash, that's fine. Where we try to draw the line with all of the discussions on this board is people promoting any kind of treatment without solid scientific evidence - alternative or Western.

You say that homeopathic remedies worked for you. That's great, and I hope you remain allergy-free.

Beyond the fact that they appeared to work for you, however, there's really not much more that can be said.

Cut the personal insults please or I will be dispensing some time-outs.

BikRed - Perhaps you walked into this unknowingly, but there have been people promoting "natural therapies" over Western meds since the beginning of the epidemic. The most extreme believe that HIV doesn't even cause AIDS. We will NOT, I repeat, NOT, be having that conversation here. However, with that history, I hope you can see how conversations of this type can lead to problems.

Short of that, there are those who claim that there isn't enough evidence on the safety of western meds for HIV and a host of other diseases and that "natural" therapies are safer, and even work better. The problem with most alternative therapies is that there usually isn't very solid evidence for their efficacy, and their safety concerns are often underplayed or ignored - which are the very things that people promoting alternative therapies usually say about Western meds. You could say it's a he said/she said situation, except that with Western meds there are usually placebo-blinded studies in large enough groups that you can draw statistically meaningful conclusions.

Also, the FDA does require extensive testing for prescription medicine to ensure that the amount of active ingredient on the bottle is what's actually inside. There are no such standards with non-prescription herbs and supplements, and independent sources have confirmed that the amount of active ingredient in various herbs and supplements often varies widely. What's more, many of the tinctures and herbs from China and India contain heavy metals, such as lead, due to all of the pollutants in the air, soil and water.

Is western medicine perfect? No.

Are there sometimes long-term side effects that only become apparent later? Yes.

Is it possible that some alternative therapies might prove to be effective and safe if they were studied more rigorously? Yes.

With all of those caveats, however, really the only thing you can say about most alternative meds is whether or not they appeared to work for you or your friends. If you feel they worked, and you want to fork over the cash, that's fine. Where we try to draw the line with all of the discussions on this board is people promoting any kind of treatment without solid scientific evidence - alternative or Western.

You say that homeopathic remedies worked for you. That's great, and I hope you remain allergy-free.

Beyond the fact that they appeared to work for you, however, there's really not much more that can be said.

You've said a lot here, David. Thanks for intervening on the personal nature the discussion was heading. Yes, I didn't know what I was opening up when I offered my perspective, and clearly I was not offering treatments for HIV but rather for seasonal allergies.

But to some other things you said:

Is your comment about censoring certain discussion on HIV and AIDS the policy of Poz.com? I hope not. Because some might link this due to the preponderance of big pharm $$ that fund this site and the POZ personals site. If this IS the policy, kindly direct me to where I might see this in print.

I wish the FDA had been as rigorous as you would like them to be with homeopathic treatments with AZT, which killed - not my words but many San Francisco doctors - many of our peers.

Predictably, the perceived outsider is held to a high standard, while that which is deemed conforming [Western medicine] is clearly not. Often there is no standard at all. AZT is an example. Someone mentioned they liked Seldane, for example, but it was proven to have worst side-effects than what I personally had, and these were covered up as if Toyota Motors ran it. So much for rigor.

Last word [from me] on HIV and AIDS. I am taking ATRIPLA with success and no side-effects, but I know there are scientists some might deem as quacks who can't prove their theses because they can't get funded, so there is a catch 22 out there, which probably can be shown to exist for many alternative treatments as well [irony that so many patented pharmaceuticals are derived from alternative treatments, which cannot be patented]. And I daresay where there have been studies, we would hear very little about them in the West, for prejudice.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Lets clarify exactly what we mean by homeopathy. In the US, sometimes people use it to refer to any old alternative or holistic treatment philosophy.

Technically, homeopathy is Swiss and German and means the little pellets carrying the "reminder" of elements that supposedly counteract the health problem you have.

Its it is extremely metaphysical.

I think we all agree that the homeopathy being discussed in this thread is Hahneman's idea that like cures like and the more dilute a preparation the more potent the effect aka the Law of Similars and the Law of Infinitessimals.

And yes that has sorta grown into the "memory of water" bullshit that gets referred to these days, though Hahneman certainly didn't talk about that as far as I'm aware.

Here's some of what Alan Sokal from the Department of Physics, New York University, and the Department of Mathematics, University College London had to say about homeopathy when he gave the Third Annual Sense About Science lecture on February 27, 2008 at the UCL Cruciform Lecture Theatre:

It's worth looking in a bit of detail at one of the most widely used "alternative" therapies, namely homeopathy, because its advocates sometimes claim that there is evidence from meta-analyses of clinical trials that homeopathy works.

Now, one basic principle in all of science is GIGO: garbage in, garbage out. This principle is particularly important in statistical meta-analysis: because if you have a bunch of methodologically poor studies, each with small sample size, and then subject them to meta-analysis, what can happen is that the systematic biases in each study - if they mostly point in the same direction - can reach statistical significance when the studies are pooled.

And this possibility is particularly relevant here, because meta-analyses of homeopathy invariably find an inverse correlation between the methodological quality of the study and the observed effectiveness of homeopathy: that is, the sloppiest studies find the strongest evidence in favor of homeopathy.

When one restricts attention only to methodologically sound studies - those that include adequate randomization and double-blinding, predefined outcome measures, and clear accounting for drop-outs - the meta-analyses find no statistically significant effect (whether positive or negative) of homeopathy compared to placebo.

High-quality clinical trials find no difference between homeopathy and placebo because homeopathic remedies are placebos. (So homeopathic remedies are not just useless but also harmless - unlike conventional or herbal medicines. There is no danger of an overdose!)

It's well worth reading his whole lecture. (linked to above)

Tom Chivers of the UK Telegraph wrote about when doctors in the NHS voted to not only stop funding homeopathy, but also recommended that it may no longer be sold as medicine, but rather it should carry the label placebo. How's them apples?

Doctors vote to drop homeopathy on the NHS – and about time

In all the furore over cuts to the NHS, doctors have voted to stop one service all by themselves – and unlike what is expected to follow, this is something we should all celebrate. The British Medical Association (BMA) has voted to stop offering homeopathic treatment on the NHS.

It’s better still. They also say that homeopathic products should no longer be labelled “medicines” and should instead be marked “placebo” when sold in pharmacies. In entertainingly robust language, Dr Tom Dolphin of the BMA’s junior doctors committee described homeopathic remedies as “nonsense on stilts”.

And fair enough: it’s an almost inexpressably daft concept. Without wanting to go into it in too much detail here, it is based on:

• a) a mistaken idea that substances that cause a symptom can cure that symptom (e.g. poison ivy causes skin rash so it can cure eczema, or onion causes running eyes so it can cure hayfever) and

• b) that the more dilute a remedy is, the more potent it is – without limit. So – with not a trace of irony – homeopaths offer “remedies” diluted so far that you could reasonably expect to find one molecule in a sphere of water several times larger than the Sun. I am not exaggerating, incidentally.

More importantly, it doesn’t work. Several major trials have been done, no convincing evidence found. It is ridiculous, in this age of evidence-based medicine and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, that the NHS spends money on it.

Should we ban it? No – if people want to spend their money on it, they should be allowed to. But taxpayers should not be forced to contribute, and it should be clearly labelled for what it is. That does not seem illiberal or harsh. Every other remedy sold in pharmacies has to declare its side-effects and what it has been shown to work for.

Because it’s not harmless. People who believe that homeopathy works are normally sensible enough to go to a real doctor when they get an actual illness, but not always. You may remember that hideous case last year of an Australian couple who tried to treat their daughter’s eczema with homeopathy. Obviously, it didn’t work, and the poor girl eventually died of septicaemia. Homeopaths have also been known to advise patients to take homeopathic malarial remedies when travelling abroad. The fact that it is available on the NHS gives these people – some of whom are dangerous charlatans – an air of legitimacy which they do not deserve. So the BMA’s decision is long overdue.

And really, homeopaths shouldn’t be too disappointed. In fact, they should be grateful. After all, by their own logic, the less funding they get, the more effective it will be.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Yikes, im not really sure how to respond. I guess ill try? Although its kind of awkward to have a debate with the moderator of the forum who has censorship rights...

1)Well, i guess ill start by saying i dont proofread what i write. I write online like i write on AIM (thank god for autocorrect) And when i say 1000s of years, i didnt literally mean it. Its a figure of speech. But thanks for dotting my eyes and crossing my Ts! 2) I TOO, am able to quote things! For example, i can quote something from the journal of homeopathic medicine. I'm not really sure why you quoted some speech. My statement wasn't specific to anything particular about homeopathic medicine, just that there is "definitive value" to it, not as a replacement for westernized medicine. Some people like you may denounce homeopathic medicine, while others (like me), like to straddle the fence and support both. So i'm not sure...that by quoting that speech if you're trying to convince me not to believe in it? I'm so confused. 3) I meant to say feverishly. but thanks for getting my back.

Yikes, im not really sure how to respond. I guess ill try? Although its kind of awkward to have a debate with the moderator of the forum who has censorship rights...

1)Well, i guess ill start by saying i dont proofread what i write. I write online like i write on AIM (thank god for autocorrect) And when i say 1000s of years, i didnt literally mean it. Its a figure of speech. But thanks for dotting my eyes and crossing my Ts! 2) I TOO, am able to quote things! For example, i can quote something from the journal of homeopathic medicine. I'm not really sure why you quoted some speech. My statement wasn't specific to anything particular about homeopathic medicine, just that there is "definitive value" to it, not as a replacement for westernized medicine. Some people like you may denounce homeopathic medicine, while others (like me), like to straddle the fence and support both. So i'm not sure...that by quoting that speech if you're trying to convince me not to believe in it? I'm so confused. 3) I meant to say feverishly. but thanks for getting my back.

tennis, we do not practice censorship. The Terms of Membership states "Messages posted to the AIDSmeds.com Forums must not contain marketing information, either from a pharmaceutical company; a healthcare provider (i.e., seeking to provide services to the HIV community); or the manufacturer or distributor of a complementary, alternative, herbal, traditional, and/or surgical treatment approach." This is to stop quacks from trying to sell their snake-oil and things along these lines.

Our posting guidelines found in the Living With forum's Welcome Thread states "Please feel free to voice your opinion. We fully support free speech in these forums as long as you do not become abusive."

Asian countries have been using homeopathic medicine for thousands of years,

That is hardly a "figure of speech", it is a statement of what you perceived to be fact.

A figure of speech is a rhetorical device that achieves a special effect by using words in distinctive ways. Examples of figures of speech are metaphor, simile and hyperbole.

I quoted part of a speech because he explains very well why it's been proven that homeopathy just does not work. I quoted a blog because he talks about how even the BMA has decided there is no worth to homeopathy.

If you want to believe in fairy tales, I guess that's your business. I'll leave you to your own devices.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

What i meant by censorial is that as a moderator, you have the right the stop me from commenting or responding to what you are saying irregardless of what the Terms of Membership states, as clearly this forum as turned in a tennisplayer56 vs ann squabble

And sorry, im less linguistically inclined and more sciency inclined (and PLEASE don't point out to me that sciency is not a word Ann!). So i guess i meant that Asian countries have used homeopathic medicine for "A LONG TIME". Happy? I don't even know what you are taking the time to correct my English, its just petty and reflects poorly. Its funny that you warned me of being polite and then you go on to say that what i believe is considered "a fairy tell". Hypocrite?

When i responded to this posting, i never made an attempt at selling anything related to homeopathic medicine, or pushing any kind of agenda. I was just giving my opinion. I'm pretty sure no one here is dumb enough to take what i said and applyit to practice =). I mean, i get what your motives and intentions are Ann, but relaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Man this thread has me all fucked up in the head. How the hell am I supposed to guess what someone means when they say something but it's not really what they meant. Fuck man, thousands of years doesn't mean a 1,000 no more.. it's like a decade or something I guess.

Hypocrite? <--- that's a sentence! Fuck me, no wonder I can't get this verb agreement thing down pat.

And I never said you tried to sell anything. I was just trying to clarify the "censorship" thing that YOU (and also BlkRedBonenla) brought up.

Ann, since we are setting records strraight, I was not the one who introduced censorship. It was the GLOBAL Moderator [sic] who did, and I asked for a clarification in light of the fact this site is not paid for by alternative medicine types but rather big pharmaceuticals.

"The most extreme believe that HIV doesn't even cause AIDS. We will NOT, I repeat, NOT, be having that conversation here." David Evans, Global Moderator.

I have not heard from Evans since.

As far as the "Terms" of the Forums, I have read marketing information from "acceptable, " "allopathic" drug companies on here for years and am not aware anyone being censored for doing so. What is "marketing information"? To offer well-meaning advice, posters have quoted from the "literature" from HIV drugs to support its effectiveness or to offer a caution. If this is done with any alternative treatment, homeopathy included, the drug pushers pull out their big attack guns and quote from sources that are not unbiased on this issue, given the funding stream.

For those of you drug centered, let me clarify further. Alternative therapy includes HOMEOPATHY. It also would include change of diet. Some people can remove things from their diet to alleviate allergy symptoms. Some can increase their intake of vitamin C. I have known some who swear by acupunture. Kali iodatum worked best for me.

A patented pill from a big drug company is not the solution to all your problems.

Weren't you, by your own admission in your earliest posts, an AIDS denialist for seven years until you irresponsible behavior left you bedridden with 20 t-cells and a nasty bout of PCP?

What an incredibly twisted question, Miss P. I was never an AIDS denialist. What I have questioned and do question is the simple link between HIV and AIDS. If you'd gained anything from a remedial education you'd know that exposure to a microbe does not mean you will be sickened by it. If it were otherwise we'd all be dead. So I do believe other factors probably cause AIDS - that is, aside from the elastic definition its had over the last 20-odd years.

But what does this question have to do with alternative treatments, homeopathy, or allergies?

What an incredibly twisted question, Miss P. I was never an AIDS denialist. What I have questioned and do question is the simple link between HIV and AIDS. If you'd gained anything from a remedial education you'd know that exposure to a microbe does not mean you will be sickened by it. If it were otherwise we'd all be dead. So I do believe other factors probably cause AIDS - that is, aside from the elastic definition its had over the last 20-odd years.

But what does this question have to do with alternative treatments, homeopathy, or allergies?

Wow, really?

You question the semantics of the label he's applying but you follow the same fundamental beliefs of the denialists.

A recent piece by an anti-homepathy writer in the Guardian. Note most of these articles come from the European press, which might be dismissed in Rumsfeldian fashion as "Old Europe" or speak to their greater appreciation of medicine as both an art and a science.

Anyway, the writer makes some great points in his piece, even though he considers homeopathy a "rip off."

"Garner made three points to me: that we shouldn't be withdrawing treatments that work for patients (whether this is a placebo effect or not); that the medicines these patients might otherwise be given, such as painkillers, SSRI antidepressants or antibiotics, may have side effects or be more expensive; and that by catering to their whims "we keep the patients in contact with conventional medicine so if their symptoms change they are not alienated from mainstream medicine"." ...

"Dr Ben Goldacre took a similarly nuanced view at the hearing, with an argument that echoes Dr Garner's: "There are often situations where an individual may want treatment, for example, but where medicine has little to offer – lots of back pain, stress at work, medically unexplained fatigue, and most common colds, to give just a few examples. Going through a 'theatre' of medical treatment, and trying every medication in the book, will only risk side-effects. A harmless sugar pill in these circumstances may seem to be the sensible option."

...

""We do not require doctors to use only evidence-based treatments, in any form of medical care, but we do expect doctors to do their best to ensure that any treatment they offer is in the patient's best interests. This will generally mean that any known risks of the treatment are outweighed by the potential benefits to the patient."

What an incredibly twisted question, Miss P. I was never an AIDS denialist. What I have questioned and do question is the simple link between HIV and AIDS. If you'd gained anything from a remedial education you'd know that exposure to a microbe does not mean you will be sickened by it. If it were otherwise we'd all be dead. So I do believe other factors probably cause AIDS - that is, aside from the elastic definition its had over the last 20-odd years.

But what does this question have to do with alternative treatments, homeopathy, or allergies?

And bingo! The denialist is revealed.

Once again in close up:

What I have questioned and do question is the simple link between HIV and AIDS. So I do believe other factors probably cause AIDS - that is, aside from the elastic definition its had over the last 20-odd years.

Now BlkRedBonela is being a bit cute. He's trying to hide the tracks of his cloven hooves here by giving the impression that HIV is just one of the causes of AIDS, but in reality he's just another garden variety HIV denialist trying to deceive and obfuscate.

"The most extreme believe that HIV doesn't even cause AIDS. We will NOT, I repeat, NOT, be having that conversation here." David Evans, Global Moderator.

I have not heard from Evans since.

For those of you drug centered, let me clarify further. Alternative therapy includes HOMEOPATHY. It also would include change of diet. Some people can remove things from their diet to alleviate allergy symptoms. Some can increase their intake of vitamin C. I have known some who swear by acupunture. Kali iodatum worked best for me.

A patented pill from a big drug company is not the solution to all your problems.

So what's your point? And are you still taking your Atripla? Me thinks the Atripla has played a huge part in the reconstitution of your Cd4's to the levels you're seeing now. All the vitamin C and Kalie iodatum had absolutely nothing to do with it other than giving you some peace of mind perhaps. If that's what you need then hey guess what it did something for you. No offense, but I view it all as psychobabble and never was one to fall for the placebo effect homeopathy brings. You have found benefit in it though, so more power to you.

As far as the last part I highlighted from your comment, I totally understand where Mr. Evans was coming from and you sir are walking a fine line in my opinion.

You question the semantics of the label he's applying but you follow the same fundamental beliefs of the denialists.

The label is meaningless. And dumb. Denialists, to break it down in small bites, is really no better or clarifying than calling someone a terrorist. It may make you and Church feel Holy, but it has no basis in reality.

"AIDS denialist" is a label applied to a large diverse-thinking group of people, some quacks, some seasoned scientists and laypersons by its opponents but has never been used by those people themselves. Few that I've met have ever denied AIDS. I don't. What fundamental beliefs?

If questioning scientific theses makes ones a denialist - which it may to those who employ the "you are with us or against us" mentality, then I wouldn't trust your doctors to nurse a pet rock, let alone a cadaver, or a live person.

Again, this is the Pill-centered menality many have fallen in to ... just one swallow from the kool-Aid. It corresponds on a political level to that narrow range of our political discourse, where Hannity is the Right and Colmes is the "left." Cheers.

Vitamin C is a favourite quack remedy of the denialist shitbirds. Linus Pauling was its most avid promoter, but there have been others.

And really it should come as no surprised that the denialist who started this thread should be prattling on about homeopathy and other alternative claptrap and quote mining reputable scientists like Ben Goldacre for his own twisted purposes.

The fundamental belief you espoused earlier in this thread that HIV is not in fact the sole cause of AIDS. You are denying the link between the two. The way to stop AIDS is to stop HIV. The only surefire way to do this is with HAART. If you think differently that's great, but you're wrong. As it turns out you are dead wrong.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts